OCPBUGS-29437: Upstream: <carry>: RPM: Split apiserver, scheduler, k-c-m, kubelet into subpackages

[sdodson]

This change should allow us to install a much smaller set of binaries
into RHCOS while preserving functional compatibility with with anyone
who installs openshift-hyperkube today as it requires all sub packages.
Those wishing to have just the kubelet can begin installing
openshift-kubelet

-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 129M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kube-apiserver
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 114M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kube-controller-manager
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root  54M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kube-scheduler
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 105M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kubelet
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 3.5K Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kubensenter

Should save about 297M or 74% in most environments where the kubelet is
all that's desired.

It's not clear to me why these were ever in the RPM since OCP 4.x but this
packaging should remain compatible as openshift-hyperkube depends on

• openshift-kubelet
• openshift-kube-apiserver
• openshift-kube-scheduler
• openshift-kube-controller-manager

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sdodson: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-29437, which is invalid:

• expected the bug to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

The bug has been updated to refer to the pull request using the external bug tracker.

In response to this:

This change should allow us to install a much smaller set of binaries into RHCOS while preserving functional compatibility with with anyone who installs openshift-hyperkube today as it requires all sub packages. Those wishing to have just the kubelet can begin installing openshift-hyperkube-kubelet

-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 129M Jan 1 1970 /usr/bin/kube-apiserver -rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 114M Jan 1 1970 /usr/bin/kube-controller-manager -rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 54M Jan 1 1970 /usr/bin/kube-scheduler -rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 105M Jan 1 1970 /usr/bin/kubelet -rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 3.5K Jan 1 1970 /usr/bin/kubensenter

Should save about 297M or 74% in most environments where the kubelet is all that's desired.

It's not clear to me why these were ever in the RPM since OCP 4.x but this packaging should remain compatible

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sdodson: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

• 92f3ba2|RPM: Split apiserver, scheduler, k-c-m, kubelet into subpackages: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

[openshift-ci]

Skipping CI for Draft Pull Request.
If you want CI signal for your change, please convert it to an actual PR.
You can still manually trigger a test run with /test all

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sdodson: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-29437, which is invalid:

• expected the bug to target the "4.16.0" version, but no target version was set

Comment /jira refresh to re-evaluate validity if changes to the Jira bug are made, or edit the title of this pull request to link to a different bug.

In response to this:

This change should allow us to install a much smaller set of binaries into RHCOS while preserving functional compatibility with with anyone who installs openshift-hyperkube today as it requires all sub packages. Those wishing to have just the kubelet can begin installing openshift-hyperkube-kubelet

-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 129M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kube-apiserver
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 114M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kube-controller-manager
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root  54M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kube-scheduler
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 105M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kubelet
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 3.5K Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kubensenter

Should save about 297M or 74% in most environments where the kubelet is all that's desired.

It's not clear to me why these were ever in the RPM since OCP 4.x but this packaging should remain compatible

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sdodson: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

• 3b6c611|Move some deps to kubelet: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message
• 92f3ba2|RPM: Split apiserver, scheduler, k-c-m, kubelet into subpackages: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

[travier]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sdodson: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

• 0775399|RPM: Split apiserver, scheduler, k-c-m, kubelet into subpackages: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sdodson: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-29437, which is valid. The bug has been moved to the POST state.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.16.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.16.0)
• bug is in the state New, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

No GitHub users were found matching the public email listed for the QA contact in Jira (schoudha@redhat.com), skipping review request.

In response to this:

This change should allow us to install a much smaller set of binaries
into RHCOS while preserving functional compatibility with with anyone
who installs openshift-hyperkube today as it requires all sub packages.
Those wishing to have just the kubelet can begin installing
openshift-hyperkube-kubelet

-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 129M Jan 1 1970 /usr/bin/kube-apiserver
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 114M Jan 1 1970 /usr/bin/kube-controller-manager
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 54M Jan 1 1970 /usr/bin/kube-scheduler
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 105M Jan 1 1970 /usr/bin/kubelet
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 3.5K Jan 1 1970 /usr/bin/kubensenter

Should save about 297M or 74% in most environments where the kubelet is
all that's desired.

It's not clear to me why these were ever in the RPM since OCP 4.x but this
packaging should remain compatible as openshift-hyperkube depends on

• openshift-kubelet
• openshift-kube-apiserver
• openshift-kube-scheduler
• openshift-kube-controller-manager

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sdodson: This pull request references Jira Issue OCPBUGS-29437, which is valid.

3 validation(s) were run on this bug

• bug is open, matching expected state (open)
• bug target version (4.16.0) matches configured target version for branch (4.16.0)
• bug is in the state POST, which is one of the valid states (NEW, ASSIGNED, POST)

No GitHub users were found matching the public email listed for the QA contact in Jira (schoudha@redhat.com), skipping review request.

In response to this:

This change should allow us to install a much smaller set of binaries
into RHCOS while preserving functional compatibility with with anyone
who installs openshift-hyperkube today as it requires all sub packages.
Those wishing to have just the kubelet can begin installing
openshift-kubelet

-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 129M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kube-apiserver
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 114M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kube-controller-manager
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root  54M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kube-scheduler
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 105M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kubelet
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 3.5K Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kubensenter

Should save about 297M or 74% in most environments where the kubelet is
all that's desired.

It's not clear to me why these were ever in the RPM since OCP 4.x but this
packaging should remain compatible as openshift-hyperkube depends on

• openshift-kubelet
• openshift-kube-apiserver
• openshift-kube-scheduler
• openshift-kube-controller-manager

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sdodson: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

• 027b292|RPM: Split apiserver, scheduler, k-c-m, kubelet into subpackages: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sdodson: the contents of this pull request could not be automatically validated.

The following commits could not be validated and must be approved by a top-level approver:

• e66d14e|UPSTREAM: : RPM: Split apiserver, scheduler, k-c-m, kubelet into subpackages: does not specify an upstream backport in the commit message

Comment /validate-backports to re-evaluate validity of the upstream PRs, for example when they are merged upstream.

[sdodson]

/cc @mrunalp @soltysh
Do you mind reviewing this, I believe it's ready to go after some testing upgrading from old package format to new format.

[rphillips]

/lgtm

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: rphillips, sdodson, soltysh, travier

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• DOWNSTREAM_OWNERS [soltysh]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[openshift-ci-robot]

/retest-required

Remaining retests: 0 against base HEAD 2f0465f and 2 for PR HEAD e66d14e in total

[sdodson]

/hold
Needs changes to release repo to ensure that all of the rpms are available openshift/release#48807

[rphillips]

/retest-required
/hold cancel

[sdodson]

/retest

[openshift-ci]

@sdodson: all tests passed!

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

[openshift-ci-robot]

@sdodson: Jira Issue OCPBUGS-29437: All pull requests linked via external trackers have merged:

• openshift/kubernetes#1882

Jira Issue OCPBUGS-29437 has been moved to the MODIFIED state.

In response to this:

This change should allow us to install a much smaller set of binaries
into RHCOS while preserving functional compatibility with with anyone
who installs openshift-hyperkube today as it requires all sub packages.
Those wishing to have just the kubelet can begin installing
openshift-kubelet

-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 129M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kube-apiserver
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 114M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kube-controller-manager
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root  54M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kube-scheduler
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 105M Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kubelet
-rwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 3.5K Jan  1  1970 /usr/bin/kubensenter

Should save about 297M or 74% in most environments where the kubelet is
all that's desired.

It's not clear to me why these were ever in the RPM since OCP 4.x but this
packaging should remain compatible as openshift-hyperkube depends on

• openshift-kubelet
• openshift-kube-apiserver
• openshift-kube-scheduler
• openshift-kube-controller-manager

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

[openshift-bot]

[ART PR BUILD NOTIFIER]

This PR has been included in build openshift-enterprise-pod-container-v4.16.0-202402212311.p0.g2eba5a9.assembly.stream.el9 for distgit openshift-enterprise-pod.
All builds following this will include this PR.

[openshift-merge-robot]

Fix included in accepted release 4.16.0-0.nightly-2024-02-22-095849

[sdodson]

/cherry-pick release-4.15

[openshift-cherrypick-robot]

@sdodson: new pull request created: #1906

In response to this:

/cherry-pick release-4.15

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.